Female soldiers will no longer be relegated to supporting roles in America’s military. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta plans to overturn a 1994 rule that prohibits women from taking positions in combat units.
Described as a “groundbreaking move” by The Huffington Post, Panetta’s decision opens up hundreds of thousands of front-line jobs for women in the military. It’s also possible that women will find themselves eligible for elite positions in America’s special forces.
The changes, expected to be announced more fully today, Jan. 24, won’t come quickly, however. Military branches are being asked to create plans to open the doors for women to serve. Some of the new jobs might open up later this year, but branches will have until January 2016 to make cases that some positions, such as slots in the Navy SEALS, are not suitable for women, the Post reports.
It is unclear at this time whether women who volunteer for military service would be assigned to combat positions if they didn’t seek them out.
Here’s what we’d like your take on Tampa Bay: Is it time for the military to level the playing field? Or, do you think women should be kept off the front-lines? What about the draft? Should women between the ages of 18 and 25 also have to register with the Selective Service? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
The differences in standards are part of the issue. If we are truly going to have equality there needs to have the same standards. As someone who works with the military daily, and has multiple members of my family currently serving. All that is being asked for it same standards, same career paths. All should be held to the same standards, and all should have the opportunity to serve their country in the same way.
This statement by you shows exactly where you really are a departure in this agrument: "You talk about "Career Paths" , the military isn't making widgets or cellphones, the military is tasked to kill the enemy, it is a profession (soldiering) it is based on DUTY - HONOR - COUNTRY, not 401k's and corner offices." No one said it was about producing units or 401ks, but yet you bring this into a conversation where it has no place. It is a chance for you to divert the subject. Being you believe in a draft, doesn't mean that todays Army for many is a carreer path. It is something they join to serve their country with Duty and Honor. But it is also a career. If you decide to serve your country and you are fit to do the job, then you do the job. I understand that you do not like that for some it is a profession, but regardless of how you feel about it. What you are really saying is one genders commitment is more valuable than another genders commitment. I understood what you were advocating, and I'm saying same standards for all. If that is the standard then it is the standard. But it must be the standard for all.
Again, if they want to be in a combat unit, the testing and standards should be the same. Excluding them or including them based on a seperate basis or gender shouldn't happen. But anyone who can perform under the same standards should be allowed to perform. I'm not being PC, dealing with all branches of the military regularly doing my job making sure they have the best equipment possible. I see it from all sides. And I do disagree with you on combat offers not being career military, I know and deal with a good number that are career military. As far as advancement in combat ready units, it should be with someone who has been in those conditions. There I agree with you. You want to compare this to affirmative action, which in this case cannot be the case. It comes down to one standard for everyone, men, women, etc... if you pass you can do the job. If you fail, then you cannot do the job. Not affirmative action where you are filling a quota of people. If you believe only men can be combat ready, which is what you are saying. That only men can perform under the pressure and expectations in combat. That is crap. You are making an agrument they should be tested, but you want them tested more than the men that currently hold the position. Which is just as bs as testing them at lower standards to get in.
I do like how you mix two vastly different organization types at the end. I'm sure if a woman could make an owner money (in the NFL), she would see the field. You are making the assumption that women can't perform to the same standards as men, which is the flaw in your agrument. It will be more than a few women that pass, but there will be a lot that fail as well. But then there are no excuses, if you fail. You fail, period. If you can do the job, then you should be allowed to do the job. The same standard that is currently in place will still be in place by all those I have talked to (regardless of sex, for many of the same concerns you and Barry have mentioned). It will be up to those who can do the job. As it should be with all military positions, if you can't do the job, then you are not doing the job. There are plenty of bad Lt's, my brother's first tour in Iraq was because his Lt wanted his combat ticket punched. They weren't even properly equiped for the tour (due to influx of equipment). That kind of bad judgement isn't gender specific, it just is bad character. As you point out, it can be from male or female.
You are trying to turn around the agrument, but it doesn't work that way. I'm saying like in any profession. If you can't do the job, then you can't do the job. It's a harsh stance, but its the truth. But instead of having an artificial wall, those that can perform have a chance to perform. Your stance is that standards will have to be lowered. That is saying that women have no right competiting for the same job by the standards for that job. How is that not a harsh stance? You are saying that their is no chance they can perform at that standard. As far as Professional Sports, not a good indicator because it's not performance that determines sales, it's the consumer. Would Tebow be a quarterback on a team if it was based on Performance? He is a 47% passer. There are women who could compete and women that wouldn't be able to. But because we as a consumer make it a seperate product, then it is. As far as your example of the Williams Sisters, I believe they would be competitive against the best men. Basketball I do not think your WNBA team would compete against the the best men. But there are athletes in the WNBA that could compete, and during skills challenges have shown to be better than some of their male counterparts.
I like how you are showing your believe that women are inherently inferior by your agrument. It's not a standard for a fit male, it is a standard to do a job. If you want to be able to do the job, you should be able to do the job. My agrument hasn't changed. You that the standards have to change for the "normal" woman, but these standards wouldn't be lowered for the "normal" man. The bias in your agrument is obvious. You attempted to shade the agrument to one side is equally as obvious. Obviously you feel men are the only ones able to the job, and when your agruments are logically rebuttalled you modify your agrument. I'm tired of this, I'm just going to trust what the men and women current in uniform are telling me. Have a wonderful day.
The seat to sell is the different in professional sports. The seperation of professional sports is more marketing at this point then segregation. They are seperate now do to marketing and our slow moving society. I never alluded that military was about selling seats, I said that is why they are two different agruments. Professional Sports is about selling seats, the military is having the best men and women protect/defend our nation. That is why professional sports is a bad example of what you are implying. I do not think if the standard is the same, the product doesn't suffer. But I also believe putting in artificial barriers does make things suffer. The job is the job, and therefor the standards cannot be lowered. As far as gender inequality fix, I'm not stating that either. All I'm saying is everyone should have an equal right to the same job on the same standard. Doesn't matter to me, age, gender, sexual orientation... if you can do the job, and you want the job. You have a right to compete for that job. As far as the example of you wanting to continue to serve, if you can do the job, then you can do the job. That means being physically able to do it and medically cleared. Who is to say you are not better than someone in their 20's? Your experience would be useful. The same standard across the board, and the standard should be lowered for noone.
I understand you believe they will be lowered. And like you I think if they are lowered it would reduce our effectiviness. But unlike you, I do not believe they will be lower. That is also what I'm being told from the military people that I deal with professionally, and think that the number of women who can do the job or greater than expected. I disagree with it negatively impacting the career paths of other women, they would just be on the same career path they are currently on. But at that point we are splitting hairs. Thank you for the conversation.
playing field with men at todays rigorous standards. The bar will necessarily be lowered and missions will suffer. If she had been in my Ft. Dix AIT Infantry cycle in the summer of 1967 she would been recycled. Being in a hostile zone, although dangerous and brave women serve there with distinction, it is not the same as an infantry squad sent out for days in the field to hunt and kill the enemy. All the PC, "everybody deserves a chance crap", won't change that